The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy. Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.

There must have been a massive upsurge in Latin scholarship between 1962 and 1998. Was it discovered that the use of the word 'rector' in reference to leaders of armies and such as governors general of provinces was merely figurative?

I am puzzled though how one can be a "figurative" leader of an army? or a "figurative" governor of a province?

I don’t know if it’s because you’re Irish, or because of New Zealand culture, but you seem to have a rather different understanding of the English word “figurative” than I do.

Permit me to explain my understanding of the term via example.

Suppose I have a fat friend. One day I say, “You are an elephant.” Of course, he is not really an elephant, but there is something about my friend that makes him similar to the literal meaning of the word “elephant.” Thus, I have used the word “elephant” figuratively.

Another way to look at it is suppose you went to look for the definition of the word “elephant” in the dictionary. You find the entry, and you see as one of the definitions, “fat boy,” with a (fig.) next to it indicating that this is a figurative understanding of the word. This means that “fat boy” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “elephant,” but is rather a figurative usage of it.

Now let’s relate this to our discussion. You look up the word “rector” in the dictionary, and you find that one of the definitions is “military leader” with a (fig.) next to it (in Lewis & Short, it’s actually (trop.)). This means that “military leader” is not the primary or literal definition or usage of the word “rector,” but the figurative usage. Someone may use the word “rector” when they are referring to a “military leader” only because there is something about a military leader that is similar to the literal meaning of the word “rector.”

Hope that helps.

Humbly,Marduk

Thank you, that is now quite clear.

Have you looked at Icondule's link which shows an icon of the Mother of God as a military rector? Figurative or not, I do not know.

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army? No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.

IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War. As I pointed out on the CAF thread, Comrade Stalin and the Bolsheviks found out the hard way that the pope didn't need any legions.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy. Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.

As a Russian Orthodox, I don't think you want to go there. Just a humble suggestion.

"The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to "conquer" Holy Mother Russia."

We are still seen as fodder for conversion.

March, 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days. 30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.

You offer this as proof? A page from a MAGAZINE?You've got to be kidding, Father Ambrose. You do no favors for yourself to be taken seriously when you offer such silliness as this and try to pass off a magazine article as an arm of the Pope.Just more polemical rhetoric...

"The fall of the Iron Curtain has given the Church greater freedom of movement. The first to respond to the opportunity have been the religious orders. Their destination: the former Catholic nations. Their dream: to "conquer" Holy Mother Russia."

We are still seen as fodder for conversion.

March, 1990 issue of the Catholic magazine 30 Days. 30 Days is one of Italy's best Catholic magazines and has a worldwide distribution in several languages.

You offer this as proof? A page from a MAGAZINE?You've got to be kidding, Father Ambrose. You do no favors for yourself to be taken seriously when you offer such silliness as this and try to pass off a magazine article as an arm of the Pope.Just more polemical rhetoric...

Father A's specialty.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

I believe the last time the Pope led an army was when Pius IX ordered his army to fight the army of Italy. Of course, that may be only a "figurative " leading as also the deaths of the young Italian men, victims of papal ambition and political stupidity.

As a Russian Orthodox, I don't think you want to go there. Just a humble suggestion.

Humbly,Marduk

Well, I'm not Russian Orthodox. Where do you want to take this fellow Egyptian?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,. You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains. I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.

Do you have any sources to support those claims (1- that he threatened to dethrone kings who would not allow the Inquisition; 2) that England told him to take a hike)? By the way, the Pope never had the authority to dethrone kings and princes. His sole authority was religious - he had the authority to excommunicate them. I believe your hierarchs excommunicated secular officials in the history of the Russian Church. Is there a difference, aside from the context of a religious society during medieval Europe?

Quote

And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.

Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.

Humbly,Marduk

How is this not ex cathedra?

Quote

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Cf.Ineffabilis Deus: "We declare, pronounce, and define that....is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

Pastor Aeternus: "We teach and define...So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Munificentissimus Deus: "By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define...Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.'

In repsonse, Jean of Paris wrote De potestate regia et papali (which also stated a pope could be deposed for heresy). In response, and in confirmation of Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VII excommunicated the king of France. Sounds rather official.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't recall the Pope ever having claimed to have secular dominion over the world (which seems to be what you are implying).

Oh, he could certainly dominate the secular world,. You will remember that he was able to dethrone kings and princes who would not allow the Inquisition to operate in their domains. I have always, although an Irishman, been proud that England told him to take a running hike on this score.

Do you have any sources to support those claims (1- that he threatened to dethrone kings who would not allow the Inquisition; 2) that England told him to take a hike)? By the way, the Pope never had the authority to dethrone kings and princes. His sole authority was religious - he had the authority to excommunicate them. I believe your hierarchs excommunicated secular officials in the history of the Russian Church. Is there a difference, aside from the context of a religious society during medieval Europe?

Quote

And of course there is our ancient enemy Unam Sanctam which subjects secular powers to the Pope's authority.

Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed.

Humbly,Marduk

How is this not ex cathedra?

Quote

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Well, he took it off the list of titles because it's no longer historically relevent but that doesn't mean that he is not the Patriarch of the West.

So the "list of titles" is a list of "historically relevant" titles and not a list of things the pope actually is (or claims to be)? If he's the Patriarch of the West, why would he bother to take it off the list? And how is that title irrelevant?

The Vatican issued this statement:

"From a historical perspective," the communique reads as reported by the Vatican Information Service, "the ancient patriarchates of the East, defined by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and of Chalcedon (451), covered a fairly clearly demarcated territory. At the same time, the territory of the see of the bishop of Rome remained somewhat vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Eastern patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the pope was included as the patriarch of the West. Rome, on the other hand, favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title 'patriarch of the West,' the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the pope as the first of the then five patriarchs.

"The title 'patriarch of the West' was adopted in the year 642 by Pope Theodore. Thereafter it appeared only occasionally and did not have a clear meaning. It flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, in the context of a general increase in the pope's titles, and appeared for the first time in the Annuario Pontificio in 1863."

The term 'West' currently refers to a cultural context not limited only to Western Europe but including North America, Australia and New Zealand, thus differentiating itself from other cultural contexts, says the communique. "If we wished to give the term 'West' a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical juridical language, it could be understood only in reference to the Latin church."

"The title 'patriarch of the West,' never very clear, over history has become obsolete and practically unusable. It seems pointless, then, to insist on maintaining it. Even more so now that the Catholic Church, with Vatican Council II, has found, in the form of episcopal conferences and their international meetings, the canonical structure best suited to the needs of the Latin church today."

"Abandoning the title of 'patriarch of the West' clearly does not alter in any way the recognition of the ancient patriarchal churches, so solemnly declared by Vatican Council II,” the statement said. “The renouncement of this title aims to express a historical and theological reality, and at the same time... could prove useful to ecumenical dialogue."

Ha! I have never seen a modern use of the term "Popery". That's awesome.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army?

Pope Julius II

Quote

No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.

That’s a bunch of non-sequiturs stringed together to result in a non-sensical statement.

Quote

IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War.

And your point? Never mind. The only point of 99% of your posts is to put down the Catholic Church, even while neglecting the log in your own eye.

You must be very young. These were the 1870s, my great grandparents were alive.

I am under 140.

From an historical perspective, 140 years ago is not a long time and it certainly is within the second hand narrative of lives in being. For example,I remember when I was young and my Aunt from Tennessee would relate how the surviving Confederate soldiers would assemble in Chattanooga to commemorate a great battle from the American Civil War. I thought she must have been as ancient as the Romans. My father would relate how the nation remembered the seventy-fifth anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg in 1938. Today, almost seventy years from Pearl Harbor, today's children are seeing the same thing with the aging survivors of the Second World War and forming their own memories from the still-living narrative. My point is that what seems frozen in the distant past can, and most likely is, directly relevant to our current situation in the world or in a culture. In order to fully understand the present times, you have to know about the world that preceded us.

I had read a post on some blog (I forget which--old age I guess) that related an ironic early development. It seems that the Emperor had called the Patriarch of Constantinople "the Universal Pontiff' or such. The Bishop of Rome was Saint Gregory the Great who vehemently objected to the notion that any Patriarch, including himself, can be called such a thing and that creating such a super category of bishop undermined the Church. Of course, later things were reversed, with our Catholic brothers and sisters insisting that the Universal Primacy of the Pope originated from the get go. I suppose St. Gregory must be turning over in his grave any time that he reads some of our posts.

The last time the Pope went to war was about 140 years ago, the time of my great grandparents. Pope Pius IX went to war against the State of Italy and appealed to the Catholic nations of Spain and France to assist his army by attacking Italy also. To his bitter disappointment they refused to send armies to fight for him.

When Pope Pius IX lost that war and lost his sovereignty over the Papal States, he became the "prisoner of the Vatican" - not something he chose out of love for holy reclusion but because he feared to be assassinated on the streets of Rome by the fathers and brothers of those killed by the papal army.

I believe the question was, “When was the last time the Pope led an army?” not, “when was the last time the Pope requested assistance from the secular powers?”

Seriously, is our English different from the English you speak over there in New Zealand?

If we are going to be picky, when did a pope of Rome ever lead an army?

Pope Julius II

Quote

No pope I can recall led the Crusaders, but they sacked all the Eastern sees (except Alexandria, but that was not from lack of trying) in the name of the supreme pontiff, who implemented the innovative ideology behind Pastor Aeternus to install Latin "patriarchs" on the Orthodox cathedras.

That’s a bunch of non-sequiturs stringed together to result in a non-sensical statement.

Quote

IIRC, the Vatican took sides in the Spanish Civil War.

And your point? Never mind. The only point of 99% of your posts is to put down the Catholic Church, even while neglecting the log in your own eye.

It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?

I think Mardukm said that we were lucky that the part of "Unam Sanctam" where the Apostle Peter states through his 194th embodiment that he is the ruler of the secular powers of the world was not claimed as an infallible statement. To this day Catholics are uncertain whether the Pope may dethrone the English Queen or deprive Obama of his office. Learned theologians look at "Unam Sanctam" and argue both ways while the one man who knows stays silent.

Infallible statements are marvellous things. The document may consist of several pages but only one particular sentence will actually be the infallible one and all the rest is really only supporting verbiage. To find the one infallible sentence you have to know that it will be introduced by certain key phrases.

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.

Papal Bulls etc. seem rather like the Curate's Egg. The bishop said to the poor young curate who was trying to eat an obviously bad egg... "I'm sorry to see you've got a bad egg." "Not at all, Your Grace," says the curate, "parts of it are quite good."